Loading...
16100 Greenridge Terrace - Staff Report and Exhibit 2PREPARED BY: JOCELYN SHOOPMAN Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: 10/24/2018 ITEM NO: 2 DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2018 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-16-002 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-17-001. PROJECT LOCATION: 16100 GREENRIDGE TERRACE. PROPERTY OWNER: EMERALD LAKE INVESTMENTS LLC. APPLICANT: KOHLSAAT AND ASSOCIATES, INC. REQUESTING APPROVAL TO RE-ZONE A PROPERTY ZONED HR-2½ TO HR-2½:PD AND TO SUBDIVIDE ONE LOT INTO EIGHT LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-2½. APN 527-12-002. RECOMMENDATION: Open and hold a public hearing to allow the public to provide verbal comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). PURPOSE OF HEARING: As required by CEQA, this public hearing is being held during the 45-day public review period for the DEIR for the proposed project which includes a request to re-zone a property zoned HR-2½ to HR-2½:PD and to subdivide one lot into eight lots. The Notice of Availability for review of the DEIR was released on September 14, 2018 with the 45-day public review period ending on October 29, 2018. This public hearing is an opportunity for members of the public to provide verbal comments on the completeness and adequacy of the DEIR. Written comments will be accepted until the close of the public review period that ends at 5:00 p.m. on October 29, 2018. The DEIR is an informational document that informs the public and the Town’s decision-makers of significant physical environmental impacts related to the proposed project. The DEIR also identifies ways to minimize potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. The DEIR will be considered by the deciding PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: 16100 GREENRIDGE TERRACE/PD-16-002 AND EIR-17-001 SEPTEMBER 21, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Greenridge 16100 DEIR.docx PURPOSE OF HEARING (continued): body in its review of the proposed project. The findings within the DEIR do not mandate a particular decision on the proposed project, and the DEIR does not act as a recommendation for the proposed project. The proposed project may ultimately be approved, even if the DEIR discloses significant unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project. Similarly, the proposed project may be denied, even if the DEIR finds that there are no significant impacts. A decision on the proposed project will be made based on the merits of the project and the record, including the DEIR. This public hearing is not intended for consideration of the proposed project nor for the actual certification of the DEIR. The deciding body may not act on the merits of the proposed project until the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared. This public hearing is intended solely to allow the public an opportunity to provide verbal comments on the DEIR. Staff will not be responding to comments on the DEIR received during the public hearing. The responses to comments will be included in the FEIR. NEXT STEPS: Following the public hearing on October 24, 2018, and the close of the 45-day public review period on October 29, 2018, staff and the Town’s Environmental Consultant will respond to all written comments and to the testimony received at this Planning Commission public hearing. The response to the comments will be provided in the FEIR, which will include any revisions to the DEIR necessitated by the comments that are received. A public hearing for consideration of the FEIR and the proposed project has not been scheduled. The Town Council is the deciding body for the proposed project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject property. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 19, 2018 are included as Exhibit 2. EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover: 1.Notice of Availability and DEIR Note that the complete DEIR is also available online at: http://www.losgatosca.gov/16100GreenridgeTerrace PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: 16100 GREENRIDGE TERRACE/PD-16-002 AND EIR-17-001 SEPTEMBER 21, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Greenridge 16100 DEIR.docx Received with this Staff Report: 2.Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 19, 2018 Distribution: Emerald Lake Investments LLC, 2635 Bronzewood Drive, Tustin, CA 92782 Gary Kohlsaat, 51 University Ave, Suite L, Los Gatos, CA 95030 This Page Intentionally Left Blank EXHIBIT 2 1 To: Planning Commission, meeting 10/24/2018 From: Dave Weissman 10/18/2018 Re: Comments on Draft EIR for 16100 Greenridge Terrace 1. What was the purpose of the “scoping meeting” last April, 2017? Neighbors offered many comments and areas of concern but none are addressed in this DEIR. We need to know what comments and questions will be answered in the Final EIR since all comments are due by 10/29/2018 at 5 PM. How are we supposed to know if one of our questions from the scoping meeting might go unanswered in the final EIR if we don’t know what questions will be answered? 2. In May, 2011, a Due Diligence Report (hence referred to as Report) was commissioned by the property owner at that time. We discussed this Report at the April, 2017, scoping meeting as this Report seems to periodically disappear from Town files. Several issues were raised by the Report, foremost being the 1970 court ruling which stated, according to the Report, that “subdivision of the 35-acre parcel would result in forfeiture of all Greenridge Terrace access rights.” If that statement is true, then simultaneous development of proposed Lot 1 and subdivision of the remaining lots would be impossible. So, is the Report correct or not? 3. The Report also states that private street Francis Oaks Way may be considered for emergency access. Has such emergency access been secured since such would be required, for subdivision to proceed, according to the Report? 4. Site topography is the second largest constraint to development, according to the Report. The only reason that the site’s average slope is not more than 35%, is because of previous grading done for roadways. How can such man-made grading result in additional potential density? As the Report discusses, a maximum theoretical density is not a guaranteed maximum. 5. Why are only 3 Alternatives considered since there are at least 2 ot her Alternatives that should have been considered? Alternative 4 would be to do one of the two 4-lot subdivision alternatives as discussed in the Report. Both 4 lot options decrease the needed infrastructure, leave more open space, avoid much of the constraints imposed by the steep topography, have driveways and cul -de-sacs within Town standards, and result in more clustering, which is a major goal of the HDS&G PD Ordinance. Alternative 5 would be to combine presented Alternatives 2 and 3. This Alternative 5 would not only save 11 more trees, but it would also ensure preservation of more than the 4.46 acres under the current proposal. While no development is now proposed for these other open space areas, future development, such as fences and vineyards, would be prohibited and such would add an extra layer of habitat protection, as noted by the DEIR. 6. Current Town codes restrict driveway lengths to 300 feet and cul -de-sac lengths to 800 feet. Why does the DEIR not comment on how the proposed 8 house subdivision would violate both of these provisions and would thus require that exceptions be granted? Why does the DEIR also not comment on how both 4 lot subdivisions in the Report would minimize the need for these driveway and cul-de-sac exceptions, in addition to the other positive benefits discussed above in #5 ? 7. In a DEIR of this size, there are many moving parts . The accuracy of an analysis by one party may depend upon previous analysis by another party. There should always be internal peer review because later decisions by the governing body will utilize earlier presented information. Let me give 2 examples of significant errors in this DEIR – both are related to the number of trees that will be removed by proposed houses . For Lot 3, Sheet L3.1in the Conceptual New Residence Study states that 16 trees will be removed and shows their location. The DEIR, page 22-3, states 24 trees will be removed. The EXHIBIT 2 2 Arborist’s Report, page 21 in Appendix D documents “high impact” to 33 trees, shows their locations on his copy of Sheet L3.1, and states in his report (page 7) that trees with “high impact” from/during construction, should be removed. But most significant is that 9 of these trees are within the footprint of the proposed house or driveway and, yet, all 9 of these trees were omitted on Sheet L7.1. For Lot 7, Sheet L7.1 in the Conceptual New Residence Study states that 7 trees will be removed and shows, with an “X”, their location. But using the same schematic, the Consulting Arborist, in Appendix D, lists on page 8 , and shows on page 25 of his report, that 24 trees will have a “high impact” level. (These 24 total trees were also correctly identified in the DEIR on page 22-3). But most significant for a claim of incompetence is that these 17 omitted trees are, once again, within the footprint of the proposed house and yet, all 1 7 of these trees are not shown on Sheet L7.1! Are these obvious errors being made because of conflicts of interest? Showing a low number of trees to be removed impresses the Deciding Body. S imultaneously, showing the higher number of trees to be removed in the arborist report, is also good for the applicant, because when they want to actually remove these trees , they only have to show the Town’s Arborist the tree report to justify their removal on the Tree Removal Permit. This action is facilitated because the Town’s Arborist apparently never goes back to the original documents to confirm which trees the Deciding Body approved for removal when the A&S application was approved. So, my question is how are these errors not being corrected by internal peer review? Such tree removal information, when accurate, is important for several reasons: a. It could result in the repositioning of the proposed house. In fact, DEIR Alternative 2 is just such an effort as this alternative proposes to move 3 houses to save 11 trees. b. Which trees are to be removed, and their locations, are a necessary component of a properly done visual analysis (see #8 and #9 below). 8. The Town’s HDS&G Visibility Analysis methodology was modified on 12/5/2017. Why does the applicant’s visibility analysis not reflect these changes, specifically as they apply to proposed Lot 4? In Appendix C, for Lot 4, Sheet A -4.2 indicates that the proposed house is 45.5% visible, yet, on Sheet A-4.1, the maximum elevation is shown as 25’ instead of the required 18’. How can that be? Also, there are 4 screening trees (#250, 251, 256, 257) on Lot 4 that would be removed under the proposed plans. Where are the calculations/simulations that show how these 4 trees affect the screening once they are removed? Was such a required analysis even done? Fortunately, the DEIR, on page 3-15, correctly states that Lot 4 is limited to 18’ in height. But how does the error on Sheet A-4.1 get into the Town’s packet at all? 9. The same criticism for the Lot 4 visibility analysis in #8 above, can also be asserted against the incomplete and sloppy methodology shown for Lots 3, 5, and 8. Again, why was this analysis not properly presented to the Town by showing , through simulations/mockups, as to what the effect would be of removal of screening trees? Did the Town staff do its own peer review? How does the Town, or an outside peer reviewer (which the CDD director has the option of bringing in – see HDS&G, page 14, j.), know if the analysis was done correctly without seeing the complete methodology? This information is critical not just because of the 25% visibility threshold, but because the HSD&G (page 15) requires that a structure be moved to another location on the site if such a move can reduce the visual impact. 10. A major purpose behind the visibility analysis is to limit the visual impact of new houses on the Town and valley floor. When visibility exceeds 25%, then the height of the proposed house is limited to 18 feet. But in the case of Lot 3 (with 56.2% visibility for a 5,392 ft2 house), Lot 4 (with 45.5% visibility for a 5,483 ft2 house), Lot 5 (with 52% visibility for a 5,434 ft2 house), and Lot 8 (with either 32.1% [from the calculations on Sheet A-8.2] or 39.6% [as shown in photo on Sheet A- 8.2] visibility for a 5,606 ft2 house), how does the massive size of these houses possibly speak to the goals of the HDS&G? And the above houses have the following visible elevations from the EXHIBIT 2 3 valley floor: Lot 3 at 1,717 ft 2 (although the applicant incorrectly states 1,338 ft2 because numbers were transposed), Lot 4 at 1,311 ft2, Lot 5 at 1,579 ft2, and Lot 8 with either 570 or 703 ft2 visible, depending upon which percentage on Sheet A -8.2 is correct. Nowhere in the HDS&G is the applicant promised a ~5,000+ ft2 house just because they went from 25’ to 18’ in height. Since smaller houses are simply less visible, w hy aren’t these proposed houses smaller? 11. Lastly, the DEIR says (page 22 -1) that CEQA does “not allow a reduction in the number of housing units…if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation available that will provide a comparable level of miti gation.” Does anyone really believe that the cumulative effect of all the listed negative environmental consequences a re themselves, when added together , not significant? And this sum total is not mitigatable. I would predict that a wildlife survey done now and repeated several years after buildout of this proposed project, would show a significant reduction in the amount of wildlife present on these 36 acres. Oak woodlands can be resistant but not to such a massive insult.